I didn't hear him say the word unconstitutional in that clip. I heard him say he didn't think it would work. Turns out the President compromised in order to get healthcare for those in need. I don't know what your point is here, anyway. You won't admit that Romney was for it when he clearly was. How can you then turn around and attempt a similar argument?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I didn't hear him say the word unconstitutional in that clip. I heard him say he didn't think it would work. Turns out the President compromised in order to get healthcare for those in need.

He said that if the government could mandate you buy insurance, it could mandate you buy a house. A constitutional lawyer doesn't make that statement without knowing it means "unconstitutional." The USSC's questions today directly mirrored Obama's own words.

Quote:

I don't know what your point is here, anyway. You won't admit that Romney was for it when he clearly was. How can you then turn around and attempt a similar argument?

He wasn't for it. Ever. You fail to understand that I'm not taking issue with the concept of mandates themselves, nor is Romney. I'm taking issue with the federal government making you buy a product under the guises of interstate commerce. It's an issue of enumerated powers. If the federal government can make you buy healthcare, it can make you buy just about anything on the grounds it affects other people or involves interstate commerce. It's a Constitutional problem, not one of mandates being good or bad at any level of government.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Your arguments thus far have amounted to nothing more than "nuh uh, he wasn't." I provided VIDEO CLIPS in which he EXPLICITLY STATED he was for individual mandates. What you presented here was a clip of Obama simply disagreeing with the idea in 2008 and you putting words in his mouth now.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

HE WAS IN FAVOR OF A FEDERAL MANDATE! THE VIDEO DOESN'T LIE!Now, on the other hand, you do.

I've seen that. It's hard to make the case that because he mentioned Wyden-Bennett and "getting everyone insurance" he supports a federal mandate. In fact, he's explained many times that his idea was to allow states to craft their own plans. Secondly, an individual mandate is only one component of Wyden-Bennett (it includes exceptions to the rule as well). It includes other major features and is vastly different from Obamacare.

BR, in 10 years of Romney interviews, that's the only one I've ever seen that even could be interpreted to mean he might have supported a federal mandate. Since that time he's repeatedly stated he does not has never supported federal mandates. Are you saying he's lying?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

He goes on to be more explicitly in favor of a federal individual mandate.

Quote:

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Now it's more than just an interview's slip of the tongue. He deliberately wrote in favor of an individual mandate. Romney was in favor of one--until Obama was.

There's a tinge of humor in the irony of Republicans losing their shit, calling their own policies socialism, and attempting to get them declared unconstitutional. Just a tinge though. It's mostly sad, pathetic, and demonstrates a complete lack of patriotism--again ironic coming from the biggest fucking flag wavers.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

It is disgraceful a rich country like the United States does not have a National Health Care Plan.Everyone is bitching and moaning about Obama care but the dam republicans don't do a dam thing about trying to get a decent health plan of their own for the poor and middle class but just complain and bitch and moan. Screw them!

He goes on to be more explicitly in favor of a federal individual mandate.

Now it's more than just an interview's slip of the tongue. He deliberately wrote in favor of an individual mandate. Romney was in favor of one--until Obama was.

There's a tinge of humor in the irony of Republicans losing their shit, calling their own policies socialism, and attempting to get them declared unconstitutional. Just a tinge though. It's mostly sad, pathetic, and demonstrates a complete lack of patriotism--again ironic coming from the biggest fucking flag wavers.

I'm sorry, that's not accurate. You and many others have interpreted those words to mean that he meant an individual federal mandate. But he never says it, and has denied taking that position time and time again. He has repeatedly called for Obamacare to be repealed.

None of it matters anyway. It looks like the USSC is going to toss the mandate on its butt. This will have a devastating impact on Obama politically. It will kill his "signature accomplishment" because it won't be funded any longer. And it will change the debate from whether Romney supported mandates to what should be done in the future.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I'm sorry, that's not accurate. You and many others have interpreted those words to mean that he meant an individual federal mandate. But he never says it, and has denied taking that position time and time again. He has repeatedly called for Obamacare to be repealed.

None of it matters anyway. It looks like the USSC is going to toss the mandate on its butt. This will have a devastating impact on Obama politically. It will kill his "signature accomplishment" because it won't be funded any longer. And it will change the debate from whether Romney supported mandates to what should be done in the future.

No, let me paraphrase for YOU.

1. Romney does not favor a federal mandate.
2. There is extremely scant evidence he ever supported one. He's never explicitly stated so.
3. He's repeatedly denied favoring a federal mandate
4. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare since its passage.
5. The mandate is likely to be ruled unconstitutional anyway, making the issue moot.

I realize you're having fun playing with yourself (perhaps in that way) and accusing all conservatives of hypocrisy and dishonesty. But that won't work on me, because I've certainly never favored a federal mandate and have always believed it to be unconstitutional. Secondly, I've opposed Obamacare from the beginning. The candidate I'm voting for takes the position that it needs to be repealed. I agree with that position, and I'm not concerned about his past support of mandates at the state level. There is zero chance he will pursue a federal mandate if elected...and that's really what matters, not your ridiculous gotcha politics and partisan games.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It is disgraceful a rich country like the United States does not have a National Health Care Plan.Everyone is bitching and moaning about Obama care but the dam republicans don't do a dam thing about trying to get a decent health plan of their own for the poor and middle class but just complain and bitch and moan. Screw them!

For once you have a point. The fact that the US is the last modern nation without (officially sanctioned) free health care for the poor is absolutely disgraceful.

He said "...if things were that simple, I could mandate everyone buy a house and that solve the problem of homelessness." That's exactly the argument the conservative justices were addressing yesterday. Given that, and the fact that Obama is a lawyer, it's most certainly a legal argument.

This is exactly why the justices talked about the slippery slope. If the feds can make you buy health insurance because it's a market everyone eventually participates in, then they can do that for any other market. It's why Scalia mentioned broccoli. Everyone participates in buying food, and broccoli is good for you. Why can't the government mandate you buy broccoli or pay a fine? Why can't the government make you buy a cell phone or pay a fine? Everyone participates in the need for communication, and cell phones can be an important safety tool. Why not mandate it?

This is why the federal government's argument is almost certainly doomed. Their position has been "trust us...the healthcare market is unique..we don't do it anywhere else." I'm not going to be surprised if it gets overturned more than 5-4.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

He said "...if things were that simple, I could mandate everyone buy a house and that solve the problem of homelessness." That's exactly the argument the conservative justices were addressing yesterday. Given that, and the fact that Obama is a lawyer, it's most certainly a legal argument.

Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.

That's about as clear as it can possibly be. Not a constitutional argument, a policy argument.

Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.

That's, of course, exactly what he tried to do with healthcare.

Bullshit. You have faith in government to provide for people and solve their problems. You have zero faith in a system of government, hence your antipathy towards the U.S. Constitution.

I love the constitution. I think it's awesome. But the constitution is not the only important aspect of our system of government. Take, for instance, the Triumvirate. It is the specific job of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine exactly what is legal under the Constitution. I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.

I love the constitution. I think it's awesome. But the constitution is not the only important aspect of our system of government. Take, for instance, the Triumvirate. It is the specific job of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine exactly what is legal under the Constitution. I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.

Of course you don't believe it says what "I think" it says. That's because you don't like what it says. It makes implementing your socialist-progressive ideas difficult. This has always been the case, going back to TR, Wilson and FDR. TR was the father of the progressive movement here. Wilson carried it on. And FDR expanded socialism further than any President. All of them despised the constraints of power the Constitution placed upon them. Senator Fulbright was perhaps most outspoken in his dislike of the Constitution.

Quote:

“The President is hobbled in his task of leading the American people to consensus and concerted action by the restrictions of power imposed on him by a constitutional system designed for an 18th century agrarian society far removed from the centers of world power.”

and

Quote:

“He (the President) alone, among elected officials can rise above parochialism and private pressures. He alone, in his role as teacher and moral leader, can hope to overcome the excesses and inadequacies of a public opinion that is all too often ignorant of the needs, the dangers, and the opportunities in our foreign relations.

and this quote from the article:

Quote:

Why Collectivists Don’t Like the U.S. Constitution

In the final analysis a collectivist or socialist mentality looks upon the whole basic philosophy of the original American concept of government as frustrating, slow, cumbersome and restrictive. They feel, as did the Tories in Revolutionary days, that somebody like the king just HAS to be in charge and compel the stupid masses to do what is good for them. Self-government is nice “as an idea,” they said, “but impractical.”

That's what it's all about. You can claim to "love" the Constitution, but you're clearly lying. You stated here a few days ago that the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished. Dude, it's fine...really. Just state what you believe and we'll have that debate. Why is that socialist-progressives and liberals can never be honest about that they actually believe? What is that the President--who is the most liberal since FDR--has to run as a moderate? I'll tell you why: Because you know your ideas will fail ballot box. It's a center-right country, and that makes progressives fume .

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I love the constitution. I think it's awesome. But the constitution is not the only important aspect of our system of government. Take, for instance, the Triumvirate. It is the specific job of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine exactly what is legal under the Constitution. I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.

Insulting others by claiming you know what they believe and discussing respect.

Of course you don't believe it says what "I think" it says. That's because you don't like what it says. It makes implementing your socialist-progressive ideas difficult. This has always been the case, going back to TR, Wilson and FDR. TR was the father of the progressive movement here. Wilson carried it on. And FDR expanded socialism further than any President. All of them despised the constraints of power the Constitution placed upon them. Senator Fulbright was perhaps most outspoken in his dislike of the Constitution.

and

and this quote from the article:

That's what it's all about. You can claim to "love" the Constitution, but you're clearly lying. You stated here a few days ago that the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished. Dude, it's fine...really. Just state what you believe and we'll have that debate. Why is that socialist-progressives and liberals can never be honest about that they actually believe? What is that the President--who is the most liberal since FDR--has to run as a moderate? I'll tell you why: Because you know your ideas will fail ballot box. It's a center-right country, and that makes progressives fume .

Complete and utter nutjob bullshit. Your article is absolutely irrelevant to what I believe, and not even connected in any way whatsoever.

I believe the commerce clause is relevant and gives our country powers that you don't like. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I win.

And I do think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, in the best interest of the safety of the innocent members of society. Does that say anything about my respect for the constitution, that I think we should use established means to fix something that has become obsolete and counterproductive? Of course it doesn't.

Complete and utter nutjob bullshit. Your article is absolutely irrelevant to what I believe, and not even connected in any way whatsoever.

I believe the commerce clause is relevant and gives our country powers that you don't like. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I win.

If the SC agrees that the government can use the commerce clause to make you purchase a product, we all lose.

Quote:

And I do think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, in the best interest of the safety of the innocent members of society. Does that say anything about my respect for the constitution, that I think we should use established means to fix something that has become obsolete and counterproductive? Of course it doesn't.

You don't JUST think that. You are right there with Obama in describing the const. as a "charter of negative liberties." you want it to mandate what the government must do on your half. Admit it.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

They don't realize though that positive liberties and rights are typically inherently in conflict with and require an infringement of negative liberties and rights. These two cannot co-exist peacefully long-term.

They don't realize though that positive liberties and rights are typically inherently in conflict with and require an infringement of negative liberties and rights. These two cannot co-exist peacefully long-term.

No one ever implied that they would co-exist peacefully. The inherent tension between the two is how we achieve balance.

Someone recently told me that they believe liberalism is a very pessimistic ideology. And to their surprise, I agreed. I explained that I thought people fall into two basic camps. Camp 1 believes that man, ultimately, will do the right thing because it's in their best interest in the long run. Camp 2 believes that man, without preventative measures, will cave to his selfishness and desire to use and abuse men/women to their benefit. In my opinion, almost all politics can be distilled into those two basic camps.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

No one ever implied that they would co-exist peacefully. The inherent tension between the two is how we achieve balance.

Someone recently told me that they believe liberalism is a very pessimistic ideology. And to their surprise, I agreed. I explained that I thought people fall into two basic camps. Camp 1 believes that man, ultimately, will do the right thing because it's in their best interest in the long run. Camp 2 believes that man, without preventative measures, will cave to his selfishness and desire to use and abuse men/women to their benefit. In my opinion, almost all politics can be distilled into those two basic camps.

If man is prone to selfishness and abuse of others, why on earth would you want to put all the power, guns, and money in the hands of a government (a group of men and say) and say "govern yourselves"?

Perhaps I simply inferred that those advocating these positive liberties and rights assumed they could co-exist peacefully because I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would not intentionally seek to implement policies that introduce inherent conflict.

If man is prone to selfishness and abuse of others, why on earth would you want to put all the power, guns, and money in the hands of a government (a group of men and say) and say "govern yourselves"?

Because we've agreed on a set of rules and severe consequences. Pretty easy concept to understand. It's also easy to understand how removing those rules and consequences can lead to a complete breakdown of a system... witness 2008.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

Because we've agreed on a set of rules and severe consequences. Pretty easy concept to understand. It's also easy to understand how removing those rules and consequences can lead to a complete breakdown of a system... witness 2008.

Yes, Bush and Obama bailing out failed corporations did remove rules and consequences for those corporations and placed the burden on the people.

And what is this set of rules you claim we've all agreed to? Is this the magical "social contract" the statist keep citing that nobody has ever seen or signed?

Because we've agreed on a set of rules and severe consequences. Pretty easy concept to understand. It's also easy to understand how removing those rules and consequences can lead to a complete breakdown of a system... witness 2008.

Let me guess...you still think that the economic crisis was from deregulation?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't know if SCOTUS will rule Obamacare unconstitutional or not. The more important issue for me is American culture. Regardless of what the elites were preaching, the people used to have a sort of "common sense" that socialist ideas wouldn't work. But I don't know any more.

What would the founding fathers think about forcing individuals to purchase a private product? How about constitutional amendment? Could we possibly amend the constitution to force people to do something they don't want to do? Is that something that can be done in America?